1

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND STANDARDS OF RESEARCH

K.Thiyagu, Assistant Professor in Mathematics,

Tamilnadu.

thiyagusuri@gmail.com, surithiyagu@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of higher education is to pave the way for students to

move from the known to unknown by application of knowledge, through

innovative thinking and creative practices. The universities serve this purpose

by providing the platform for generation and dissemination of knowledge.

Generation of new knowledge essentially involves research. Research, the

scientific investigations aimed at discovering and applying new facts, new

techniques and natural laws involves the use of existing tools and equipment

in nonconventional ways, or designing new tools in the effort to unearth

information from hitherto unexplored areas of knowledge. This activity

requires two disciplined approaches. Firstly, the tools need to be used

effectively with predetermined good practices to generate reliable data. This

brings in the need to assure quality in all data generation practices. Secondly,

the researcher needs to evaluate the generated data exploring new links and

associations, through exercise of the mind. The higher education systems

provide the background necessary for the students to learn through their own

research experiences. Schemes to assure quality in research and mechanisms

to assess the research quality form an important component in making the

higher education more meaningful and globally competitive.

2

DESIGN OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

In our approach to design a quality assurance system for research in

India, the sequence of events in research was divided into the following three

major areas.

1. Quality of research proposals and grant applications

2. Research process

3. Dissemination and utilization of research findings and cost benefits of

research

Of the three areas, the first get reviewed externally by peers in

recommending the grant applications for funding. The second area, the

research process requires internal attention to minimize the risk of research

output being compromised by poor research practices. The quality in the third

area is assessed through external peer reviews in accepting research results for

publication and patenting or success in commercialization of research findings

generating an impact in the society directly or indirectly. The key elements

necessary to be addressed in the three areas to assure quality were identified

and a ranking system for each of the elements based on their effect on quality

were established. The marks obtained in the ranking system are proposed to be

used to establish a star grading system applicable to research groups or

departments in the universities.

Quality of Research Proposals and Grant Applications

Many scientists owe their greatness to their wisdom in choosing the

research problems and development of a hypothesis through inductive logic.

3

Research proposals provide information on background leading to selection of

the problem, the use of formulated

methods providing the opportunity for the reviewers to critically examine the

merit of the proposal and suggest means to improve the quality, including

other related aspects such as ethics, national relevance, the competency of the

applicants and cost benefits. To evaluate the quality of research in a research

team in relation to proposals or grant applications the following four success

criteria were used.

Funds secured by researchers during the last three years from external

agencies and within the university

The extent of utilization of the secured funds to achieve the purpose

proposed in the grant application effectively

Entry in to agreements with external organizations and industries to

generate demand driven research

The Research Process

The practice of research at all levels carries inherently with it a certain

amount of chaotic activities, resulting in frequent back-tracking and repetition

steps. While these events form an essential part of innovations at times, they

need to be kept under checks and controls with maintaining traceability for the

research results to be repeatable, and meaningful. This needs application of

quality assurance techniques right along the research process. The quality

assurance requires a combined effort of the researchers and the research

management system in the universities. The responsibilities and related

4

activities in a progressive research system could be identified under two broad

areas as management responsibilities and technical responsibilities. The extent

to which a research group and a university fulfill the responsibilities reflects

the presence of mechanisms to assure quality.

The requirements for successful implementation of management

responsibilities in research were identified under the following elements.

Freedom for the research group to handle research data with no

external influence

Commitment of the senior management and research staff to operate a

quality management system effectively

Well defined and documented responsibilities for members of research

group and management in line with the qualifications of persons

Planned regular discussions and meetings among the researchers and

with managers and application of preventive and corrective measures

to ensure quality in generation of data

Application of measures and guidelines in relation to publication policy,

patenting and intellectual property rights and ethics.

The plan for a research management system in the universities with

responsibilities identified broadly at each level is given in below diagram.

PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR

RESEARCH MANAGEMENT IN THE UNIVERSITIES

University Council

5

[Policy]

Vice Chancellor and Director, Research & Development

[Implementation of Research Policy]

Senate

[Academic Standards & Recognition]

Senate Research Committee

[Overall Quality of Research & Support Services]

Dean and Faculty Research Committee

[Quality Assurance in Research]

Head & Department Research Groups

[Relevance, Academic Standards, Support Services]

Research Scientists & Students

The technical responsibilities in assuring quality of research were

identified under four major areas. The areas and the related elements are as

follows.

a) Environmental control (to ensure the equipment used are maintained

under required conditions to generate reliable data with records of

environmental conditions and actions taken when the system goes out

of compliance)

b) Measurement traceability (To ensure that the results generated are

linked to the international system of measurements through calibration

6

of equipment, software and use of standard reference materials so that

the generated results could be compared globally with findings of other

researchers)

c) Sampling and sample handling (To ensure no errors are introduced in

generation of information due to biases arising due to non homogenous

nature of analyses or differences in behavior or nature of human

subjects used in research; transport and storage are done to retain the

characteristics of samples; the disposal of test samples are done with

concern on possible environmental effects)

d) Document control and documentation (To ensure internationally

validated data generation systems and test methods are used with

appropriate checks and controls, and all records of the methods used

and results obtained are available providing traceability allowing

review and re-examining the data. This information need to be

adequate for repeat performance of data generation under similar

conditions).

Dissemination and utilization of research findings and cost benefits of

research

7

This aspect of research gets reviewed externally through a series of

activities. The proposed quality assurance system examines the following

aspects.

a) Publications of recognized standing during the a period of three years

by the research groups

b) Patents and other activities that have resulted in commercial

exploitation of the results

c) Social benefits resulting from research findings

d) Strengthening of the higher education and research systems through

award of PhD degrees.

e) Recognitions gained in the form of national or international awards for

research by the research groups

This study has established a mechanism to create a dialogue between the

researchers and the assessors during assessment, and introduce a scheme that

would permit gradual improvements in quality as the research teams move up

in the star grading system progressively. The checklist developed for the

purpose will be discussed in length during the presentation.

WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STANDARDS OF RESEARCH

Selection, admission and induction of students

Admissions procedures will be clear, consistently applied and will

demonstrate equality of opportunity: Institutions will make clear and accurate

admissions information readily available to applicants and staff involved in the

admissions process. Institutions are advised to make this information available

8

on their web site and in printed form. Institutions should also make provision

for staff responsible for admissions to be aware of and understand legal

requirements relating to the processes and the need to conform to such

legislation.

Only appropriately qualified and prepared students will be admitted to

research programmes: Students will be expected to have a sufficient level of

English language competence. This should be identified by a process that is

consistently applied by the institution. Evidence of prior professional practice

or learning that meets the institution’s criteria and good practice guidelines for

the accreditation of prior experiential and/or certificated learning

The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student undertaking

a postgraduate research programme will be defined and communicated clearly:

The institution's offer to successful candidates for research degrees will

normally be expressed in a formal letter that is specific to the individual

applicant. This constitutes a contract between the student and the institution.

The terms of the letter are binding on the institution and, upon acceptance, on

the student. The letter will normally refer to or enclose other information, for

example references to institutional web pages, supplemented by printed

information where necessary.

Institutions will provide research students with sufficient information

to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic

and social environment in which they will be working: Institutions will ensure

that an induction programme, the timing and content of which reflects the

9

diversity of needs of specific groups of research students (including part-time

and newly arriving international students), is delivered at the most appropriate

levels (institution/faculty/school/department, or a combination).

Supervision

It is important to establish systematic and clear supervision

arrangements. These include: the need to provide students with opportunities

for access to regular and appropriate supervisory support; encouragement to

interact with other researchers; advice from one or more independent source

(internal or external); and arrangements that protect the student in the event of

the loss of a supervisor. These four principles are covered in more detail by

the following precepts. They provide a framework for the minimum standards

required by institutions in providing supervisory arrangements for research

students.

Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills

and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students

effectively: All supervisors need appropriate expertise for their role. They will

wish, and institutions will require them, to engage in development of various

kinds to equip them to supervise students. New supervisors will participate in

specified development activities, arranged through their institutions, to assure

their competence in the role. Institutions will expect existing supervisors to

demonstrate their continuing professional development through participation

in a range of activities designed to support their work as supervisors.

Supervisors should take the initiative in updating their knowledge and skills,

10

supported by institutional arrangements that define and enable sharing of good

practice and provide advice on effective support for different types of student.

Mentoring relationships are one example of how support can be provided for

supervisors. To assure consistency of supervision, institutions will wish to

encourage supervisors working in industry or professional practice to

participate as appropriate in any developmental activities offered by the

institution.

Feedback mechanisms

Collecting and acting upon feedback from students, staff, examiners

and others involved in research programmes is a fundamental part of the

quality assurance process, at institutional and subject levels. Institutions will

put in place mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to

feedback from all concerned with postgraduate research programmes. They

will make arrangements for feedback to be considered openly and

constructively and for the results to be communicated appropriately.

Institutions will wish to establish and operate constructive feedback

procedures that are as representative as possible of the views of all those

involved.

Assessment

Assessment processes for research qualifications are quite different

from those for taught awards and usually include some kind of oral

examination. The following three precepts and explanations address the most

important elements of assessment for research students and qualifications.

11

Institutions will use criteria for assessing research degrees that enable them to

define the academic standards of different research programmes and the

achievements of their graduates. The criteria used to assess research degrees

must be clear and readily available to students, staff and external examiners.

Student representations

It is in the interests of students and institutions to resolve problems at

an early stage. To facilitate this, institutions should ensure that students and

staff know the difference between informal ways of making representations

and routes they can use to make formal complaints or appeals. It is also

important to distinguish between complaints, which are defined as being

representations about general matters (including conduct), and appeals, which

are against specific outcomes or decisions. Institutions are advised to develop

their own definitions of complaints and appeals, and generally to assure

themselves that staff and students are aware of the different types of

representations and procedures. Institutions will put in place and publicise

procedures for dealing with student representations that are fair, clear to all

concerned, robust and applied consistently.

Conclusion

Application of the star grading system is expected to assist in gradual

improvements of the quality of research in the institutes of higher education

contributing to enhancement of the capabilities of the graduates through a

healthy interactive process. We joined together to maintain and develop the

research in higher education in the future perspectives.

12

References

Augusti, G., 2006, ‘Trans-national recognition and accreditation of

engineering educational programmes in Europe: perspectives in a

global framework’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(3),

pp. 249-260.

Becher, T and Trowler, P (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories:

Intellectual Enquiry and The Culture of Disciplines, Buckingham,

Open University Press/SRHE, 2nd. Ed.

Boele, E. B., 2007, Handbook on Internal Quality Assurance for

Conservatoires (Utrecht, AEC Publications).

Capano,G., 2007, ‘Looking for serendipity: the problematical reform

of government within Italy’s Universities’, Higher Education,

forthcoming.

Cavanagh, R. R., 1996, ‘Formative and Summative Evaluation in the

Faculty Peer Review of Teaching’, Innovative Higher Education, 20,

4, pp. 225-240.

Conrad, C. F., Johnson, J. & Gupta, D. M., 2007, ‘Teaching-for-

Learning (TFL): A Model for Faculty to Advance Student Learning’.

Innovative Higher Education, 32, 2, pp. 153-165.

Darling-Hammond, L., 1986, ‘Teacher Evaluation in the

Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature’, in House, E.R.,

(Ed.) New Directions in Educational Evaluation (London, Taylor &

Francis).

Darling-Hammond, L., 2006, ‘Assessing Teacher Education: The

Usefulness of Multiple Measures for Assessing Program Outcomes’,

Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 2, pp. 120-138.

Harvey, L., 1995, ‘Editorial: The quality agenda’, Quality in Higher

Education, 1(1), pp. 5–12.

Harvey, L. & Newton, J., 2004, ‘Transforming Quality Evaluation’, in

Quality in Higher Education, 10 (2), pp. 149-65.

13

Hutchings, P., 1996, ‘The Peer Review of Teaching: Progress, Issues

and Prospects’, in Innovative Higher Education, 20, 4, pp. 221-234.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B., 1991), ‘Complex,

performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria’,

Educational Researcher, 20(8).

Malik, D. J., 1996, ‘Peer Review of Teaching: External Review of

Course Content’, Innovative Higher Education, 20, 4, 277-286.